Steadman v. Comm'r

50 T.C. 369, 1968 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 121
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 22, 1968
DocketDocket No. 224-66
StatusPublished
Cited by69 cases

This text of 50 T.C. 369 (Steadman v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steadman v. Comm'r, 50 T.C. 369, 1968 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 121 (tax 1968).

Opinions

Dawson, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency in the income tax of petitioners for the year 1962 in the ‘amount of $67,138.73.

The parties have made concessions which can be given effect 'in the Rule 50 computation. Two issues remain for decision: (1) Whether 32,000 shares of common shock of Richards Musical Instruments, Inc., held by petitioner became worthless in 1962, and, if so, (2) whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction in 1962 of $80,000, their cost basis in the shares, as an ordinary loss under section 165(a), I.R.C. 1954,1 or as a capital loss under section 165 (g).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

Charles W. Steadman (herein called petitioner) and Dorthy F. Steadman, husband and wife, were residents of S'haker Heights, Ohio, on the date they filed their petition in this proceeding. They filed a joint Federal income tax return for calendar year 1962 with the district director of internal revenue at Cleveland, Ohio.

During 1962, and for a number of years prior thereto, petitioner was an Ohio attorney who was a partner in the Cleveland firm of Marshman, Hornbeck, Hollington, Steadman and McLaughlin. His practice was principally in the field of corporate finance and organization.

Paul E. Richards was advised of petitioner’s practice in the corporate law field and, in the spring of 1960, consulted him with regard to a plan for the acquisition and amalgamation of several musical instrument companies into a single manufacturing and merchandising organization which would market a complete line of musical instruments, thereby eliminating many of the overhead expenses inherent in the independent operations.

After extensive discussions of these plans, petitioner was offered the position of general counsel to the proposed corporate organization and was assured that he would remain in that capacity so long as Paul Eichards maintained control of its management. At that time petitioner estimated, on the basis of Paul Eichards’ immediate and long range plans for organization and acquisition, a potential of $30,000 to $40,000 a year in legal fees for his work for the organization. Under the partnership arrangement in petitioner’s law firm, he would receive all fees from Eichards Music after a percentage was subtracted to cover his share of the overhead expenses of the firm.

Petitioner accepted Paul Einhard’s offer and, as a first step in executing the plan, organized the Eichards Music Corp. (herein referred to as Eichards Music) as the principal corporate entity. Then, on December 30, 1960, the Blessing Band Instrument Co. was merged into Eichards Music, and the stock of the Martin Band Instrument Co. and the assets of the Eeynolds Band Instruments Co. were acquired by Eichards Music. The resulting entity became operational at this time with petitioner as its secretary, general counsel, and member of the board of directors. In early 1962, the name of Eichards Music Corp. was changed to Eichards Musical Instruments, Inc.

To finance the merger and acquisition, Eichards Music borrowed $750,000 from American Eesearch & Development Corp. of Boston, Mass, (herein referred to as American Eesearch), in exchange for 6-percent convertible subordinate debentures, which were convertible into common stock of Eichards Music at $3 per share.

Immediately following the merger and acquisitions, the board of directors of Eichards Music consisted of nine members, five (including petitioner) representing the shareholders, three representing American Eesearch, and one representing the Wurlitzer Co. which had acquired notes and debentures of Eichards Music in return for the stock of the Martin Band Instrument Co.

By the summer of 1961 it became apparent to the board of directors of Eichards Music that the financing obtained through the sale of the convertible debentures was insufficient to complete the plan of acquisition. At that túne the 173,200 outstanding shares of the closely held corporation’s common stock were owned as follows:

Number of Name shares
Paul Richards- 66, 000
Bessie Richards_ 20,000
Gilbert Marshner_ 18, 000
John Harbison- 1, 000
Frank Konn- 1,000
Number of Name shares
Karl Blessing_ 27, 600
Fred Blessing_ 27,600
Charles W. Steadman_ 12, 000
173,200

At a special meeting of the board of directors on June 30, 1961, American Research, and other debenture holders offered to purchase shares of Richards Music common stock (if and when issued) at $2.50 per share in an amount up to $350,000. The offer was conditioned upon the appointment of a 10-member board of directors for Richards Music containing 5 persons selected by the debenture holders. Implicit in this offer was the bid for effective control of the corporation which would inure to American Research by virtue of its veto power on the board of directors and the number of shares of common stock which it owned and controlled through the conversion feature of the debentures.

In response, the board of directors passed a resolution authorizing the issuance of additional shares of common stock at a price of not less than $2.50 per share, the total dollar amount of the issue to be at least $350,000 but not more than $500,000. The resolution provided that the shares be offered first to the shareholders of record at $2.50 per share, then, if the subscriptions by the shareholders were deemed insufficient to meet the financial needs of the company, to the debenture holders at $2.50 per share, and finally to private investors at not less than $2.50 per share.

A vice president of American Research informed petitioner that American Research was considering, in the event its offer to purchase the new issue of Richards Music stock was accepted, the replacement of the management of Richards Music and the concentration of its legal activities in Boston with a firm located there which handled American Research’s legal affairs. Petitioner discussed with several of the shareholders and with his law associates the offer made in the board resolution of June 30,1961. A partner advised him that purchase of Richards Music stock solely as an investment would be “very speculative.” Petitioner was concerned, however, that the shareholders equal American Research’s offer of $350,000 in subscriptions. After it appeared that other shareholders were willing to subscribe to only 70,000 additional shares, petitioner arranged to finance subscription to the remaining 70,000 shares. At a board of directors meeting of Richards Music on July 20,1961, oral offers for subscriptions at $2.50 per share of Richards Music common stock, yet to be issued, were made as follows:

Number of Name shares
Paul E. Richards_ 40, 000
Karl Blessing_ 20,000

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Taghadoss v. Comm'r
2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 44 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
In Re Steffen
294 B.R. 388 (M.D. Florida, 2003)
FLINT INDUS. v. COMMISSIONER
2001 T.C. Memo. 276 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
Murray v. Commissioner
2000 T.C. Memo. 262 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Wally Findlay Galleries Int'l v. Commissioner
1996 T.C. Memo. 293 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
Osborne v. Commissioner
1995 T.C. Memo. 353 (U.S. Tax Court, 1995)
Delk v. Commissioner
1995 T.C. Memo. 265 (U.S. Tax Court, 1995)
Corona v. Commissioner
1992 T.C. Memo. 406 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)
Garner v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 569 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Tippin v. Commissioner
1988 T.C. Memo. 284 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Egly v. Commissioner
1988 T.C. Memo. 223 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Cozzi v. Commissioner
88 T.C. No. 20 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)
Del Norte Natural Gas Co. v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 454 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Benak v. Commissioner
77 T.C. 1213 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Kuhnen v. Commissioner
1981 T.C. Memo. 600 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Richmond v. Commissioner
1980 T.C. Memo. 465 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Pomeranz v. Comm'r
1980 T.C. Memo. 36 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Hoover Co. v. Commissioner
72 T.C. 206 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Hollingsworth v. Commissioner
71 T.C. 580 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 T.C. 369, 1968 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steadman-v-commr-tax-1968.